User talk:Nestor 8998

I believe i added the reference properly. thank you.

Proposed deletion of Kairat Umarov

Hello, Nestor 8998. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Kairat Umarov, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Kairat Umarov to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Gbawden (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The ATOM Project

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The ATOM Project, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://kazembassy.ca/news-and-events/the-atom-project/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The ATOM Project for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The ATOM Project is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ATOM Project until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Caffeyw (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Germany–Kazakhstan relations) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Germany–Kazakhstan relations, Nestor 8998!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please look at article and see if you can address reference and category issues.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nestor 8998. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nestor 8998. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Mukhtar Tleuberdi.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Mukhtar Tleuberdi.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Green Economy in Kazakhstan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green Economy in Kazakhstan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Economy in Kazakhstan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nestor 8998

Dear Users MarioGom, Bbb23, Mailer diablo and all those concerned.

I was born in Kazakhstan and I love my birth country. The information on wikipedia about my homeland is outdated and inaccurate. Your editor community overreach so much as to actually preserve an antiquated encyclopedia about Kazakhstan. Your own personal politics and views are defacto the views presented through wikipedia.

For example, this claim by --MarioGom (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC): Until 2021, these accounts focused on adding positive coverage about Kazakhstan economy, Kazakhstan's role in Expo 2017, etc. They also focused in negative coverage of Mukhtar Ablyazov and the Open Dialogue Foundation. See overlap for more.

A review of the edits made by others hereby indicted show that the content is factual, objective, and quite material to the drama. Why does MarioGom label them as negative coverage? Why are factual edits about Kazakhstan's economy or the Expo deemed 'positive'? Are only negative toned content edits allowed? On the electric topic of human rights, are Human Rights Watch and Freedom House the sole authorities of this subject? Do those editors who drink from this firehose understand how such organizations finance their operations and raise money? Is information about a nation's human rights plan or a human rights ombudsman inherently PR in nature or just matter of fact? Someone creates or edits an article for the Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the European Union and NATO, yet Sweden's ambassador to the EU is somehow not equally scrutinized.

Is it reasonable to remove strong claims that are without citation? Is it reasonable to edit content with a source from 2004 more than 10-15 years old? I think so, and it seems that because the topic is Kazakhstan that it must be whitewashing. Simply not so.

As I have myself done, you should please take the time to review each edit (by me and the other users indicted here-within) for how well sourced and how objectively written each are. I only speak for my edits but I have added good value content to wikipedia over time.

As for the charge of sockpuppetry: On Wikipedia, sockpuppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

editors are generally expected? While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, 1. So it is not entirely a violation to use multiple accounts? Have these edits in question misled editors? No. Disrupted discussions? No. Distorted consensus? No. Avoid? Evade? Violate? Nope. Nope. Nope. Added factual, objective, well-sourced content? Yes! --Nestor 8998 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nestor 8998: before moving forward, did you register all the accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nestor 8998/Archive? Thank you. Best, MarioGom (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom: haven't you decided that already? I ask you directly: which edits specifically moved you to wage such a campaign? Which edits specifically did you consider not to be encyclopedic? Which do you determine are inappropriate? I don't see why you've driven so hard to block me when my edits are earnest with citation and objective in tone. Nestor 8998 (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Splitting contributions on the same topic across dozens of accounts is in no way a legitimate use of multiple accounts. You can file an appeal on this talk page. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and {{Unblock}}. MarioGom (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If your edits are all made with good intentions and stand up to scrutiny, why did you feel the need to split them across (at least) 16 accounts? --Blablubbs (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not said that I have made all those accounts. There are many of the diaspora studying and working where I am and use the networks I use. The diaspora is motivated by wikipedia's regulatory overreach (as shown here) to cement antiquated information about Kazakhstan and to reject any edits of neutral tone. The entire diaspora is aware of this. You do not give any forgiveness to new editors who are not familiar with wikipedia's editing rules. It is not intuitive for people to write in encyclopedic way. As such you accuse of being nefarious. In real world, new editors do not read the user rules before editing and learn by doing...by a true desire to improve. You have failed your own standards by not assuming good faith by editors. Really, what is the violation here anyway? I've reviewed many of the edits from the blocked accounts and I really don't see a content-reason to block, nor has one been given. The edits are value-add and well sourced. The basis for block is a back end IP address search, but where is the crime to justify such a search? This is like an arrest and indictment without search warrant by profiling - specifically national or ethnic profiling. Now this is Soviet! But again, the diaspora is large and active here. You do not firstly consider any of the good faith Legitimate Uses. I also preemptively call on you not to reveal publicly my IP address and violate my privacy and security. I leave you to ponder this: if the same edits were made but on countries United Kingdom or Canada would you have mades such investigation? I think that because it is Kazakhstan, you reveal your own bias that only oppression and negativity may be the real experience within my birth country. Nestor 8998 (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I returned to MarioGom's original case he presents the General Behavior and grounds for UserCheck as:

Until 2021, these accounts focused on adding positive coverage about Kazakhstan economy, Kazakhstan's role in Expo 2017, etc. They also focused in negative coverage of Mukhtar Ablyazov and the Open Dialogue Foundation. MarioGom's original case

Is this biased misread of the Wikiedits really enough to justify a UserCheck? Wow. "Positive coverage about the Kazakhstan economy"? Kazakhstan has received more than 80% of all foreign direct investment into Central Asia since 1991 and has the highest GDP, GNI and per capital income of all former Soviet Union republics. Yes there are myriad facts, encyclopedic edits that appear "positive". Expo 2017? The first world's fair ever in a Central Asian country? I reviewed the M. Ablyazov edits: these edits are without tone and surface summaries of their sourced materials which are court documents. documents from the Southern District court of New York and the British High Court!!! In all MarioGom reveals a personal bias and superficial scrutiny of the edits. All admins involved co-sign the original bias and profiling that because the content is about a country that it must be white washing or part of some nefarious operation. I have been editing for 8 years. 8 years! Edit history of MarioGom reveal them to be some kind of vigilante that does not add content edits, but only marks articles for deletion or users for conflicts of interest. They've never actually made edits that are encyclopedic or sourced. I will appeal my blockage and also propose MarioGom be stripped of any admin privileges and be sanctioned for out of control unsubstantiated vigilanteism. Also interestingly, MarioGom's User page showcases a COVID-19 Barnstar award for their "edits and contributions" to COVID-19 Pandemic Data, yet the edit history no time credits MarioGom with an edit. Is MarioGom using more than one editor account (a sockpuppet violation btw)? Or puffing his wiki user resume? Happy to be informed if I'm misreading this. Nestor 8998 (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nestor 8998: Please, see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and {{Unblock}} for more information on how to appeal a block. MarioGom (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)